An Investigation of Salmon-Habitat Destruction in British Columbia

SUMMARY REPORTHighand DryAN INVESTIGATION OF SALMON-HABITATDESTRUCTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Highand DryA n i n v e s t i g at i o n o f s a l m o n - h a b i tatd e s t r u c t i o n i n b r i t i s h c o l u m b i a

High and Dry: An Investigation of Salmon-Habitat Destruction in British Columbia© 2007 David Suzuki FoundationISBN 1-897375-07-7Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data for this bookis available through the National Library of CanadaWritten by John Werring, M.Sc., R.P. Bio.Salmon Conservation Biologist, David Suzuki FoundationJohn has spent the past 17 years researching and investigating the causes and extent offish-habitat loss throughout the Pacific region and documenting DFO’s failure to meetits habitat-conservation mandate.AcknowledgementsDSF wants to acknowledge the many individuals who serve as local stream stewards and passionateadvocates for wild salmon who brought many of these cases to our attention. We would alsolike to acknowledge the interests, contributions and dedication of DFO field staff in attempting torespond to these matters, as we recognize the limitations under which they operate. Special thanksalso go to Jeff Young, Chris Pollen and Heather Deal, who participated in the field investigations,and to Heather Deal, Jay Ritchlin, Don Hauka, Bill Wareham and Ian Hanington for contributionsin editing this report.This report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty MooreFoundation and the R. Howard Webster Foundation.The greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the paper used in this publicationhave been offset through investments in renewable energy projects.David Suzuki Foundation2211 West 4th Avenue, Suite 219Vancouver, BC, Canada V6K 4S2www.davidsuzuki.orgTel 604.732.4228Fax 604.732.0752design and production: Arifin Graham, Alaris Designphoto credits: Will Koop (Cover, page 8), John Werring (pages 4, 5, 6, 7, 9), Poul Rosen (page 10)

C o n t e n t sIntroduction | 1Specific Cases of Habitat Destruction | 3Sir Edmund Bay | 3Stokes Pit/Latimer Pond and Little Campbell River in Surrey | 4Sheila Creek, Queen Charlotte Islands | 5Chist Creek | 6Anweiler Creek | 7Millionaire Creek | 7Private Land Logging | 8Fraser Gravel | 9House Building in Nanoose Bay Tidal Estuary | 10Results | 12Our Recommendations | 13

T H E A I R W E B R E AT H EIntroductionWild Pacific Salmon are an integral part of British Columbia’snatural environment, culture and economy. So you would thinkthat we would do everything possible to ensure that they survivewell into the future.However, due to our lack of care and attention, we are steadily chipping awayat the very foundation of the wild salmon’s survival: their habitat. Their homes,the native streams in which they have reproduced for centuries, are steadily beingdegraded, and in the worst cases destroyed, by urban and rural development,industrial logging, mining and agricultural activity.Salmon consistently return to their home streams to spawn. Each individualstream supports a unique population, or stock, of salmon. To date the degradationor loss of stream and river habitat in British Columbia has contributed to theextinction of more than 142 salmon stocks. Another 620 stocks are at high risk ofextinction.The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and B.C.’s provincialenvironment regulatory agencies have the responsibility and authority to protectour salmon and their habitat. In fact, DFO is mandated under the federal FisheriesAct to do so. Yet our intensive field investigations have shown that the destructionof critical salmon habitat continues. In this report we highlight how and why thisis this allowed to happen, and we offer suggestions on what needs to be changedto better protect salmon habitat.Federal and provincial governments have adopted a “results-based” policy approachto environmental regulation. This is a hands-off management approachwhereby project proponents are encouraged to conduct their activities with minimalgovernment oversight. Government is supposed to conduct random audits ofthese activities to ensure that expected results are achieved. The intended result isno net loss of fish habitat.

i n t r o d u c t i o nThese policies are part of DFO’s new habitat-management regime, called theEnvironmental Process Modernization Plan (EPMP). The plan relies on agreementswith provincial governments and industry and on the use of “qualified professionals”hired by project proponents to undertake environmental reviews where theenvironment, particularly fish habitat, is considered to be at risk.In B.C., the provincial government has also relaxed its environmental regulatoryand enforcement regime. Both levels of government now rely heavily on “qualifiedprofessionals” to determine whether a project will have an impact on fish habitat,and to propose and conduct mitigation or compensation activities.In the past, federal and provincial environmental-agency regulatory staff haveconducted this work in a transparent and accountable system. Now, however, thenew policies and budget cuts in Ottawa and Victoria have reduced the operationalcapacity within DFO and the relevant provincial ministries to protect fish habitat.The ultimate question now: Is this new approachto habitat management working?The David Suzuki Foundation investigated some specific land-development initiativesto find out. We monitored and documented recent stream and fish-habitatdamage in different parts of B.C., reported that damage to DFO and monitored theresponse. The results are troubling. Our observations and experiences suggest thatthe current habitat-protection and management system is not working.Our investigation has identified not only problems but also some creative opportunitiesfor solutions. The science has clearly shown us that salmon need cleanwater, healthy spawning areas and natural vegetation buffers along streams. Thefederal government has the mandate and the legislation to meet these basic needs,and the provincial government has the management authority to take action onhabitat protection.What is desperately required now is for governments to invest in the capacitythat allows their relevant agencies to consistently realize salmon-habitat protection.Political will, a rigorous enforcement and management system, and appropriatefinancial resources are needed to protect habitat and reduce the risks to wild salmonsurvival.The results of our investigations and specific recommendations are presentedin this summary document. The full investigative report and detailed case files canbe found at www.davidsuzuki.org.

H I G H A N D D R YThe InvestigationThe David Suzuki Foundation investigated nine instances in which significantfish-habitat damage had been reported. These included sites inNorthern B.C., Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), coastal areas,the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. We discovered potentialFisheries Act violations at every site we investigated.SPECIFIC CASES OF HABITAT DAMAGE1. Sir Edmund BayThe situationThis case involved a finfish aquaculture operation in the Broughton Archipelagowith a history of not complying with its operating permit by expanding well beyondits approved site boundaries and production limits. Rather than charging thecompany for non-compliance with the rules, the provincial government approveda new operating plan and issued a new permit in 2002 to bring the company intocompliance with the law. The government did this despite concerns expressed bythe provincial environment ministry of the day that the newly proposed operationwas too big for the site.The investigationA site visit in January 2003 (less than a month after the new plan was approved)revealed that the company was repeating old habits by operating well beyond thescope of its newly expanded permit. The company was operating twice the numberof pens that were approved. Production was more than double the level recommendedby the Ministry of Environment to protect on-site fish habitat from farmwaste smothering the sea floor.

C A S E F I L E SWe contacted DFO and asked them to investigate this probable breach of theFisheries Act by the company and the Province.The responseA few months after receiving our complaint, senior Pacific Region DFO staff advisedus that their entire marine monitoring and enforcement team had been disbanded,their boats pulled out of the water and their budget withdrawn, and that their abilityto investigate complaints of this nature had been compromised as a result. DFOfurther advised us that they would only be conducting future investigations andinspections of salmon farms “if requested to do so”. It has been more than threeyears since we brought this matter to the attention of the DFO. To date, no punitiveactions have been taken against the company or the Province.2. Stokes Pit/Latimer Pond andLittle Campbell River in SurreyThe situationThis case involves land-development activities in an area of Surrey known as StokesPit, a former gravel-mining operation in the watershed of the Little CampbellRiver, an important salmon and trout stream. It was alleged that these activitieswere having significant adverse impacts on fish habitats. The land was owned bythe City of Surrey.The investigationA site visit in 2005 revealed numerous serious problems: a lake that was an importantlocal fishery was drained as a result of on-site construction activities; streams andwetlands on the site that had been identified by consultants as Class A fish habitatwere being bulldozed and filled in; stream-side (or “riparian”) vegetation on remainingstreams was being stripped away; in two locations fish were blocked fromaccessing their rearing habitat; and on-site construction and surface erosion resultedin a thick layer of fine sediment being deposited over much of the remaining habitat– sediment that clogs fish gills and smothers spawning habitat. Our investigatordetermined that in 15 years of doing this kind of work he had never witnessed suchsignificant loss of fish habitat associated with any one development.We contacted DFO and asked them to investigate these probable breaches of theFisheries Act. In fact, DFO had been informed of this problem before. The City ofSurrey claimed that it had done all that it could to protect fish habitat in this area.The responseAfter repeated requests that DFO address this situation, a DFO official agreed toallow our investigator to review the project-approval documents and agreed to a

H I G H A N D D R Yjoint site inspection. The document review revealed inconsistencies in site-specificinformation concerning fish values, a shocking lack of detail on site environmentalvalues and a lack of coordination between agencies reviewing the proposal.After the site visit, the DFO official expressed concern that the proponent mayhave misled him as to the quantity and value of fish habitat on the site, and acknowledgedthat the proponent may not have complied with specified conditionsof project approval or completed requested site-rehabilitation works as specified.Also, even though assessment by a biologist was clearly needed, the person whoreviewed and approved this proposal for DFO was an engineer who appeared torely on incomplete documents provided by a “qualified environmental professional”retained by the proponent.Despite all of this, DFO has since determined that this case does not merit anyaction of charges under the Fisheries Act. Unfortunately, this appears to be the way ofdoing business at DFO under its new Environmental Process Modernization Plan.3. Sheila Creek, Queen Charlotte IslandsThe situationThis case involves stream damage associated with a logging operation on HaidaGwaii. The logging site is located immediately adjacent to a stream that was identifiedby the logging company on its logging plans as a fish-bearing stream.The investigationA site visit in 2005 revealed that timber-harvesting and road-building activities impactedthree smaller tributary streams that fed directly into a larger stream that hadbeen identified on company logging plans as a fish-bearing stream. According to therules of the day, the three tributary streams should have themselves been classifiedas fish-bearing streams by virtue of the fact that they were directly connected to thelarger stream. Two of the smaller streams had been completely clear-cut. One was leftwith a partially intact riparian zone, but it had been filled in with sediment debrisrelated to road construction and, quite possibly, road failure.These incidents of stream mismanagement were reported by telephone to theQueen Charlotte City branch of the DFO in August 2005.The responseThe first thing that our investigator learned was that the regular habitat-protectionofficer for the Queen Charlottes was on a one-year leave of absence. There was atemporary replacement and the office was in transition. In October 2005, we finallyreached an official who had conducted a site visit based on our earlier calls. Theofficial acknowledged the damage but informed our investigator that just prior tologging the company had apparently reclassified the large stream adjacent to the

C a s e f i l e ssite as non-fish-bearing based on its own inspection. The DFO official admittedhe did not actually see the renewed stream assessment nor did he verify the veracityor accuracy of the subsequent stream assessment. So, rather than investigatingfurther, DFO accepted the new information provided by the logging company atface value. We were advised that this approach was consistent with new policy. Asa result, no further action was taken.In this case, the application of DFO’s new habitat-management policy may havecompromised fish habitat. Because there was no investigation conducted, the factscould not be properly determined.4. Chist CreekThe situationChist Creek is a valuable fish stream just south of Terrace. In its lower reaches it ishome to sockeye, coho and chinook salmon and rainbow trout. Dolly Varden char,a blue-listed (threatened) species were believed by DFO to occupy the upper streamreaches. Our investigators were advised in 2005 that a significant landslide had occurredon the watershed’s logging road near Km 15, making the road impassable.The investigationA site visit revealed two massive landslides off the down-slope side of the road thatdeposited tonnes of rocks, trees and sand directly into the north branch of ChistCreek. The cause of the slides appeared to be uncontrolled ditch water flowing ontothe road surface at the affected location – perhaps due to a plugged culvert. In addition,a long-banned road-building technique known as side-casting (where materialremoved from the land to create the roadway is deposited on the down-slope sideof the road) was a contributing cause of the slide. In addition, ditches and a newbridge crossing installed further upstream exposed large amounts of mineral soilthat were eroding off the roadway and being deposited into the stream.The responseWe alerted DFO and informed them that immediate action was needed to assess thecause of the road failures. The logging company had road crews in the area workingto repair the road and as a result all evidence of the causes of the slides wouldbe lost. Local DFO officials informed our investigators that they did not have staffavailable to attend the site.More than a month later, we discovered that no one from DFO had yet been toChist Creek, but that the B.C. Ministry of Forests (MOF) had been advised of thesituation and was asked by DFO to conduct an inspection. Subsequent conversationswith the MOF made it clear that illegal road-building practices likely contributed tothe slides, but there was no interest on their part to assess blame. Federal fisheries

H I G H A N D D R Ymust hold the province accountable when they have the responsibility to regulateactivities that harm fish habitat, as happened in 2005 when DFO laid charges againstthe B.C. MOF for logging infractions.To date, no charges or fines have been imposed in these matters. DFO field staffnever went out to investigate the situation. This appears to be a case where DFOlacked both the capacity to conduct a proper investigation and the political directionto take action against the Province.5. Anweiler CreekThe situationAnweiler Creek is a major fish-bearing stream in an area north of Terrace that hadbeen extensively logged in the past, resulting in a large network of intersectinglogging roads. An agent of the federal Crown encouraged our investigators to lookinto logging-road maintenance issues and practices in the Anweiler Creek drainagebecause he was concerned that fish habitat in the creek was being harmed andnothing was being done to stop it.The investigationIn 2005 our investigators visited the site. They found numerous places where thelogging rods were not being properly maintained. There was no question thatthe lack of road maintenance was harming fish habitat in Anweiler Creek, mainlythrough the introduction of tonnes of silt and logging debris through landslidesand road erosion caused by plugged culverts.The responseOur investigators immediately reported the lack of road maintenance and subsequenthabitat damage to both DFO and the B.C. Ministry of Forests. DFO staff advised usthat they were unable to attend these sites due to other commitments and would passour concerns on to the MOF. MOF subsequently advised our investigators that anaction plan was being developed to deal with all the identified road problems. Oneyear later, the promised action plan had not yet been developed. This is clearly a casewhere local DFO field offices are under-staffed and incapable of responding to criticalhabitat issues in a timely fashion. The MOF also dropped the ball. Cooperationbetween federal and provincial agencies is not working as anticipated.6. Millionaire CreekThe situationThis case involved a 43-hectare property development in the Millionaire Creek watershed,a fish-bearing stream in the District of Maple Ridge near Vancouver. Thisdevelopment was being touted as a green project, with the first guiding principle

c a s e f i l e sbeing “environment first”. Foundation staff visited this site in 2006 in response tocomplaints from local citizens that heavy surface runoff laden with sediment fromland under development was entering local creeks and harming fish habitat andthat this had been going on for some time with the full knowledge of, but inactionon the part of, DFO.The investigationA site visit on a rainy day proved the concerns to be legitimate. While the land developerhad made some attempts to manage sediment from building sites, there wasstill a great deal of run-off from the stripped-bare sites. In fact, erosion was visiblearound the foundation of some of the new homes under construction. Sedimentwas being discharged through drainage pipes into the nearby fish-bearing creek. Alocal resident advised our investigator that this sort of discharge had been occurringregularly and that local residents had reported this repeatedly to both DFO and localmunicipal-government officials. Although an environmental monitor was requiredto be on-site during construction, no monitor was observed. Our investigator sawother nearby construction sites with similar drainage problems.The responseWhen our investigator contacted DFO regarding this problem, he was told that DFOhad sent a generic letter to local developers requesting that they develop properstorm-water and siltation management plans for construction sites and that theplans be submitted to DFO for approval. DFO did not answer repeated requests forinformation concerning whether these reports were ever submitted and/or whetherthere had been compliance follow-up.Clearly this was a situation where DFO lacked the capacity and/or will to conductfield investigations in response to citizen concerns and relied more on industry todo the right thing.7. Private Land Logging, Beaufort MountainRange, Port AlberniThe situationA logging company had been logging extensive portions of the west-facing slopesof the Beaufort Mountain Range near Port Alberni. Small streams on the loggedslopes fed into a famous fishing river, the Stamp. Two small communities at thebase of the slope also rely on these streams for drinking water. After an extendedperiod of heavy rain, the logging road failed in several locations, primarily due toinadequately sized and placed culverts.

H I G H A N D D R YThe investigationOur investigator visited the site in January 2006 and again in April 2007. It wasclear from our inspections that culvert failure had caused several road washoutsand subsequent damage to at least two fish streams below. The investigator determinedthat the logging company had not installed a sufficient number of culverts,or properly sized culverts, to handle the runoff.The responseAttempts to get DFO to pursue this case resulted in no action by the agency at all.Instead, investigation into the matter was left up to a provincial agency known as thePrivate Managed Forest Land Council. The council subsequently assessed $30,000 infines against the logging company for improper culvert installations at four locationsbut ultimately determined that the cause of the road failures was not associated withlogging or road-building activity. DFO has not pursued any enforcement action inthis matter even though fish and fish habitat were clearly impacted.We have subsequently learned that DFO determined that there was no longera need for a local area habitat coordinator. In this case, the local fisheries-enforcementofficial, whose job it was to investigate habitat-related offences, was relievedof his position and re-assigned to other duties. All future matters related to habitatalteration in the district, which includes most of Vancouver Island and the centralcoast of B.C., are now to be dealt with by a single habitat official at a central locationfar removed from Port Alberni. That person would have very limited powersand would only be permitted to inspect operations and give advice to proponents.Fisheries officers, the only DFO officials with broad enforcement powers and thepower to conduct detailed investigations, would only be brought in for exceptionalcircumstances and only if one was available.8. Fraser GravelThe situationThe Fraser River has been mined for gravel for decades. Concerns have been raisedthat the mining locations are based on convenience (easy access to source of gravel)rather than for the purposes of fish-habitat protection or flood control, which wasthe original stated purpose for gravel removal. The federal government recentlygave permits for significant extractions despite these concerns.The investigationOur investigator visited a gravel-extraction site on the Fraser River in 2006. At thissite a causeway was built across a major side channel to the river to access gravel ona mid-river gravel bar. The causeway was supposed have a bridge installed to ensureadequate flows below the road, but this was not done. Thus, this causeway acted like

10 C A S E F I L E Sa dam, and our investigator observed a significant drop in water levels below theroad. This resulted in thousands of fish nests being exposed to the air, drying outand killing the eggs within them. We immediately reported this situation to DFO.A local resident also reported the problem, bringing dead newly hatched fish withhim, and was told to write a letter of complaint. DFO did not act in this matter foralmost a week. Shortly thereafter the media reported on the problem.The responseWhen the story appeared on the evening news, DFO finally acted and issued a stopworkorder. A portion of the causeway was removed and culverts were installed inan attempt to restore downstream flows, but it was too late for many salmon eggs.Our investigator then tried to track down the paperwork related to this project.After lengthy delays, he discovered that the required environmental documentswere not in place and that similar operations using the same destructive practiceshad taken place in other locations.Our complaints resulted in the DFO conducting its own investigation to determinewhat went wrong. DFO concluded that the causeway construction hadresulted in a significant fish kill and that, in future, substantial efforts must betaken to avoid a reoccurrence. DFO made a series of recommendations to preventsimilar occurrences. Many have yet to be implemented. No charges were ever laidin the matter despite the fact that millions of fish may have died.Failures in inter-agency (provincial and federal) communication, a failure byDFO to provide clear guidance and an over-reliance on information supplied bythe proponent all contributed to this avoidable fish kill.9. House building in Nanoose Bay Tidal EstuaryThe situationIn this case, a citizen informed us that a land developer was in the process of depositingtonnes of rock and sand in a tidal estuary. The fill, upon which a house wasto be built, was being deposited within the tidal flood zone, which is valuable fishhabitat. An assessment of the situation prepared by an environmental consultantfor the Regional District of Nanaimo (which initially permitted the development)early on in the project-development phase recommended that the proposed locationof the house be moved and the impacted areas rehabilitated because the projectwas causing damage to rare and sensitive habitats.The investigationA local resident contacted the David Suzuki Foundation and asked for assistancein dealing with this matter after having contacted DFO early on in the project-

H I G H A N D D R Y11development stage and receiving no action from the department. We assisted theresident in gathering information and interacting with DFO.Although DFO was informed in the early stages of this project that fish habitatwas being damaged, nothing was done while the developer deposited tonnes morefill material and commenced construction. Eventually DFO said that they wouldrequest that the project proponent conduct a fish-habitat assessment to determinehow much habitat had been impacted, but they did not stop the project. The assessmentwas to be used to determine whether and how much compensatory habitatwould need to be constructed to offset losses. This request for a habitat assessmentwas made in June 2005. The assessment should have only taken a matter of weeksto complete. However, as of May 2007, the proponent had not complied with thisrequest and the development went on to completion.The responseOur investigator contacted DFO in 2006 and asked why no action had been taken onthis case. They said this one slipped through the cracks. Further inquiries were metwith assurances that the developer would have to assess how much fish habitat wasbeing destroyed and would have to mitigate that damage. However, the developerwas never told to stop the work, and, in fact, DFO initially did not even have theresources to establish whether the site was even flooded by tides.This file has not been handled properly by DFO. When apprised of this situationin its early stages the agency did not take appropriate action to review the matteror to prevent the damage from occurring. No corrective, compensatory or punitivemeasures have been taken. The project proponent has not supplied informationrequired by DFO and the department has taken no action to make it do so.

12 C A S E F I L E SResultsThrough these investigations we arrived at three major conclusions.First, existing DFO staff are severely limited by budget and/or timeconstraints in their ability to respond to matters related to habitat destructionand loss. There are far too few inspectors and/or enforcementofficers to adequately do the job.Second, under the new habitat-management regime, of which the EPMP is aprimary component, the DFO is relying too much on information supplied byproject proponents and their qualified environmental professionals for projectapprovalpurposes, and the DFO lacks the capacity both in terms of numbers andqualifications of people to review the information for its quality and accuracy.Further, DFO policy appears to be that DFO staff should accept this informationat face value and not question the findings.Third, with the exception of the Fraser River gravel-extraction case, not one ofthe fish-habitat damage reports we submitted to the DFO led to anything morethan promises of follow-up. No enforcement actions were taken by DFO in any ofthese matters. This concerns us greatly as our investigations covered only a sampleof habitat-damage incidents, and by extrapolation we assume that many other incidentsof habit damage are similarly left unattended to by DFO or the responsibleagency in the provincial government.12

H I G H A N D D R Y13Our RecommendationsIn light of the results of our investigations we conclude that a much morerigorous and comprehensive system of enforcement for fish-habitat protectionshould be established.Recent claims by DFO suggest that the department has not compromisedits enforcement capacity and that it is, in fact, beefing it up, but the responses we havereceived and the numbers say otherwise. According to DFO’s own published numbers,95 fewer enforcement activities were undertaken in fiscal year 2005/2006 (25)compared to fiscal 2002/2003 (120). DFO’s lack of response or inability to respond,as we have identified in the above cases, suggests that this decline is continuing.We recommend that the DFO invest significantly more resources into programsthat ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act and habitat protection. This shouldinclude hiring more inspection and enforcement staff; conducting routine, randomsite inspections; monitoring permit compliance; and taking enforcement measuresto prevent further habitat loss and ensure future compliance.The challenge in realizing these recommendations is the serious under-fundingwithin DFO’s enforcement division and the lack of will to use enforcement as adeterrent. Most importantly, DFO needs to get personnel out in the field conductingrandom site inspections and taking action to prevent habitat damage fromoccurring wherever it is found.Our experience shows that by simply going out to inspect work sites it is easy tofind things that are going wrong. However, and unfortunately, we citizens do nothave the authority to stop offenders from undertaking destructive activities. All wecan do is report them to the proper authorities. But if there is anything we shouldbe able to expect from those reports, it is immediate and decisive action. Instead,as the cases above show, we are, for the most part, met with silence, inaction and/orcomplacency on the part of the DFO.13

14 o u r r e c o m m e n d at i o n sThe results of the investigations highlighted in this report support and confirmthe need for change that the David Suzuki Foundation has presented in previousreports on fish-habitat conservation. In October 2006 the David Suzuki Foundationpublished a report titled The Will to Protect, which offers a range of solutions thatthe DFO and the provincial government(s) could pursue to provide better protectionof our fish and fish habitat. The solutions, in part, include:1. Improve habitat-protection policies and regulations by:• Clarifying responsibilities of relevant provincial and federal agencies• Establishing enforceable conservation objectives• Requiring project proponents to provide accurate information on fish habitatand mitigation• Making those who destroy habitat pay for recovery• Establishing comprehensive streamside protection and protected areas• Implementing a formal audit process for self-regulating industries• Making it easier to hold those who harm fish habitat accountable2. Get DFO officials out of the office and into the field by:• Increasing resources for habitat enforcement• Establishing mobile regional task-force groups to enforce habitat-protectionlaws(The full version of the Will to Protect report can be viewed athttp://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Oceans/DSF-Will_to_Protect-72.pdf.)In summary, the David Suzuki Foundation suggests that unless DFO modifies itsnew habitat-management plan and accepts a greater and more active role regardingits responsibility for salmon-habitat conservation and protection, we will continueto see more unique populations of salmon slide into reduced levels of abundanceand, in the worst cases, go extinct. The clock is ticking and more and more salmonhabitat is degraded every year. We encourage all governments to take the issue ofsalmon-habitat protection more seriously.We encourage all those who care about the future of our wild-salmon resourceto use this report to present arguments to your municipal, regional, provincial andfederal government representatives and call on them for more investment and actionon habitat protection in the streams and rivers near to you.More information about salmon conservation can be found on our website atwww.davidsuzuki.org.

Too many salmon stocks in B.C. are threatened or have already beenwiped out because the laws governing habitat protection are not beingenforced and because too little monitoring of habitat damage anddestruction is taking place.High and Dry: An investigation of salmon-habitat destruction in B.C. looksat nine cases where habitat damage was reported and investigates what steps,if any, the authorities responsible for fish habitat took in response. The reportalso offers suggestions to ensure the future of healthy fish populations.The David Suzuki Foundation is committed to achieving sustainabilitywithin a generation. Abundant stocks of wild Pacific salmon are a vital partof a sustainable, prosperous future.2211 West 4th Avenue, Suite 219Vancouver, BC, Canada V6K 4S2www.davidsuzuki.orgTel 604.732.4228Fax 604.732.0752Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, process chlorine freeDesign by Arifin Graham, Alaris Design • Front cover photo: iStock.com